# Full text of "The Baryon Fraction Distribution and the Tully-Fisher Relation"

## See other formats

The Baryon Fraction Distribution and the Tully-Fisher Relation Stacy McGaugh Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, Carnegie Institution of Washington, 5241 Broad Branch Road, NW, Washington, DC 20015 Erwin de Blok Kapteyn Astronomical Institute, Postbus 800, 9100 AV Groningen, The Netherlands Abstract. A number of observations strongly suggest that the baryon fraction is not a universal constant. One obvious interpretation is that there is some distribution of and the different observations sample different portions of the distribution. However, the small intrinsic scatter in the Tully-Fisher relation requires that the baryon fraction be very nearly universal. It is not easy to resolve this paradox in the framework of the standard picture. 1. The Baryon Fraction Must Vary There now exist a number of observations which indicate that the ratio of lu- minous to dark mass is not the same for all systems. Rather than the single universal baryon fraction that we have nominally assumed, fb seems to have a broad distribution. Some of the observations suggesting this situation include satellite galaxies, tidal tails, X-ray clusters of galaxies, and low surface brightness galaxies. The satellite studies of Zaritsky et al. (1994, 1997) imply that the halos of L* galaxies are very large and massive. On the other hand, the morphology of tidal tails is very difficult to reproduce unless the mass of halos does not exceed the disk mass by more than a factor of 10 (Dubinski et al. 1996). This result is inconsistent with the satellites result by a factor of ~ 2. One might be tempted to equivocate at this level, but the result should not be lightly dismissed (Mihos et al. 1997). The baryon fraction is directly estimated in X-ray clusters (White et al. 1993; Evrard et al. 1996). These indicate fb ~ 0.1 with significant (factor of two) scatter which is argued to be real (White & Fabian 1995). In contrast, a stringent limit is placed by the rotation curves of the most dark matter dom- inated galaxies: fb < 0.05 (de Blok &; McGaugh 1997). This is not really consistent with the cluster result, and attempting to fit the rotation curves with NFW halos (Navarro et al. 1996) requires even lower baryon fractions of 0.01 - 0.02. This differs from clusters by nearly an order of magnitude, and is very difficult to explain away. Mass expulsion of baryons is often invoked, but this scenario predicts that the gas should be swept away. The actual galaxies are in fact quite gas rich. Other explanations could be offered, but most are rather hand-waving and lack predictive power. Another approach is to suppose that there is a distribution of baryon frac- tions. The apparently contradictory observations might then be reconciled: they simply happen to sample different portions of the distribution. However, this apparently reasonable approach has a serious problem in explaining the Tully- Fisher relation. 2. The Baryon Fraction Must Not Vary The traditional explanation of the Tully-Fisher relation supposes that light is proportional to mass: L ~ M. This works if, among other conditions, there is a universal baryon fraction. Any distribution in the baryon fraction should be reflected in the intrinsic scatter of the relation. The small observed scatter directly implies a narrow /& distribution. This restriction applies to all galaxies which fall on the Tully-Fisher relation: both the central galaxies of the satellite studies and low surface brightness galaxies, and presumably the progenitors of tidal tail systems as well. We can quantify this limit by supposing that the Tully-Fisher relation L ~ V x (1) arises from an underlying relation of the form M ~ V y . (2) Presumably, 3 < x ss y < 4. Note that some rather gross assumptions go into equation 2, and fine-tuning problems involving the surface brightness or scale length are unavoidable (Zwaan et al. 1995; McGaugh & de Blok 1998). Luminosity can be directly related to mass by M = ^ (3) 7*76 where Y* is the mass-to-light ratio of the stars, /* is the fraction of baryonic mass in the form of stars, and /& is the baryon fraction. It follows that V*-* (4 ) J*Jb By construction, the quantity \y — x\ must be small, \y — x\ < 1. For the moment, let us assume that Y* and /* are finite but small con- tributors to the scatter in the Tully-Fisher relation. Even if the /& distribution dominates the scatter, -r<\y- x \-rr- (5) Jb v The intrinsic scatter in the Tully-Fisher relation tightly constrains the allowed range of /&. For a generous assumptions of \y — x\ = 1 and an intrinsic scatter of 0.5 mag., ^ < 0.12. (6) Jb This is very small. Moreover, we have ignored the scatter in Y* and /*. From the perspective of stellar populations, one expects some scatter in T*. Variation in /* is directly observed (McGaugh &; de Blok 1997). This further tightens the constraint on the baryon fraction distribution. This constraint specifically applies to the objects discussed above where a factor of 2 or more variation was inferred, excepting only clusters of galaxies. This is a serious problem with no clear solution. 3. The Slope of the Tully-Fisher Relation We can also place limits on the amount by which the slope of the observed Tully- Fisher Relation is allowed to vary from the underlying mass-velocity relation. Let us assume simply that the various components are a function of luminosity: Y* ~ L a , /* ~ L b , and fb ~ L c . By equation 4, these slopes are related by a — b — c = y — x. (7) A reasonable limit is \a — b — c\ < 1, and probably rather less. Given that brighter galaxies tend to be redder, the stellar mass-to-light ratio is probably a weakly increasing function of L: a > 0, with its precise value depending on bandpass. The stellar mass fraction /* is observed to increase with luminosity roughly as b ~ 0.2 (McGaugh & de Blok 1997). The two tend to offset one another, so they should cause only a mild deviation of the observed slope from the intrinsic one as long as a ~ b. The usual assumption L ~ M. thus seems well justified as longs as the baryon fraction is a universal constant. If this is not the case, any systematic variation of fb with luminosity feeds directly into the slope. Since the observed slope is near to a reasonable intrinsic value (Tully & Verheijen 1997), this also argues against substantial variation in fj,. References de Blok, W.J.G., & McGaugh, S.S. 1997, MNRAS, 290, 533 Dubinski, J., Mihos, J.C., & Hernquist, L. 1996, ApJ, 462, 576 Evrard, A.E., Metzler, C.A., & Navarro, J.F. 1996, ApJ, 469, 494 McGaugh, S.S., & de Blok, W.J.G. 1997, ApJ, 481, 689 McGaugh, S.S., & de Blok, W.J.G. 1998, ApJ, in press Mihos, J.C., Dubinski, J., & Hernquist, L. 1997, ApJ, in press Navarro, J.F., Frenk, C.S., & White, S.D.M. 1996, ApJ, 462, 563 Tully, R.B., & Verheijen, M.A.W. 1997, ApJ, 484, 145 White, D. A., & Fabian, A. C. 1995, MNRAS, 273, 72 White, S.D.M., Navarro, J.F., Evrard, A.E. & Frenk, C.S. 1993, Nature, 366, 429 Zaritsky, D., Smith, R., Frenk, C, & White, S.D.M. 1997, ApJ, 478, 39 Zaritsky, D. & White, S.D.M. 1994, ApJ, 435, 599 Zwaan, M. A., van der Hulst, J. M., de Blok, W. J. G., & McGaugh, S. S. 1995, MNRAS, 273, L35 3